Conectar
To describe a grading system that can be used to evaluate core competency of clinical nurse specialists (CNSs) at different levels.
Evaluate core competence of CNSs at different levels reflects the quality of nursing and the development of the nursing profession.
This research employed the Delphi method.
The STROBE checklist for observational cross-sectional studies was followed to report this research study. This study consisted of two main phases: a literature review and semistructured interviews. Individual semistructured interviews were conducted with 11 healthcare experts and two patients. Two rounds of questionnaire surveys were administered to 21 nursing experts using the Delphi method. The CNSs were classified as primary, intermediate or advanced based on their years of work, professional titles and educational qualifications.
The graded competency evaluation system consisted of five first-level indicators (clinical practice, consulting guidance and teaching, scientific research innovation, management and discipline development, and ethical decision-making), 15 second level indicators, and 40 third-level indicators. The authority coefficients (Cr) of the experts were .865 and .901. The Kendall's concordance coefficients of the three-level indicators were .417, .289 and .316 for primary CNSs; .384, .294 and .337 for intermediate CNSs; and .489, .289 and .239 for advanced CNSs.
The graded use evaluation system in clinical practice initially involves a comprehensive evaluation of the core abilities of CNSs. This is a tool for cultivating and grading the abilities of specialised nurses that can promote a practical upwards spiral.
The evaluation system can promote the scientific management and continuous improvement of CNSs in clinical nursing and can serve as a practical and objective reference for the effective management and development of CNSs.
Patients participated in the data collection process, during which they shared their health-seeking experience with our research team.
There has been controversy over the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy or surgery in the treatment of ovarian cancer. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to assess the hazard evaluation of the effect of adjuvant chemotherapy over primary debulking surgery (PDS) on the incidence of wound infection in women with ovarian carcinoma. In this research, we looked at PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library to evaluate the impact of PDS and chemotherapy on the incidence of wound infections in women with ovarian cancer. Based on the keywords of ‘Ovary Cancer’, ‘Surgical’ and ‘Chemotherapy’, we looked up the data in the digital database, and at last, we selected six of them from 1453 studies. There was no time limitation in the studies. The meta-analyses included studies that described the risk factors of wound infection in ovarian carcinoma patients, particularly those who reported OR value. The Chi-square method was employed to perform statistical analysis of the inter-study heterogeneity, with additional analyses dependent on I 2. A sensitivity analysis was conducted, and a possible publication bias was evaluated. The findings suggest that there is a significant reduction in the rate of wound infections among patients with ovarian cancer treated with primary chemotherapy than with PDS (OR, 2.80; 95% CI, 1.79, 4.39, p < 0.0001). There was a significant reduction in the incidence of thrombus in patients with ovarian cancer who were treated with primary chemotherapy than in those who did have prior surgical intervention (OR, 2.77; 95% CI, 1.34, 5.74, p = 0.006). Our findings indicate that early chemotherapy in ovarian cancer patients may lower their chances of developing wound infection.
In this meta-analysis, we reviewed the findings and definitive findings of a new study that assessed the impact of bevacizumab on wound healing following combined chemotherapy for ovarian cancer (OC). The results of a controlled study that assessed the efficacy of bevacizumab in the treatment of ovarian cancer were retrieved from 4 databases, such as the Web of Science and EMBASE. The results of the adverse event associated with wound healing were determined by comparison of the controlled studies of bevacizumab plus chemotherapy in the treatment of ovarian cancer. A meta-analysis was conducted with either a randomized or a fixed-effect model in order to establish an odds ratio for time to event variables and for a binary outcome. In the research literature, 830 trials have been identified and seven have been chosen to be included in a definitive analysis of the trial. Among the 4134 cases who received chemotherapy after operation, 2098 received standard chemotherapy and 2036 received the addition of bevacizumab. A total of 7 trials have shown that the use of bevacizumab in the treatment of ovarian cancer patients has reduced wound healing (OR, 0.55; 95% CI: 0.37, 0.80, p = 0.002). Four trials demonstrated that there was no change in the incidence of haemorrhage in patients with ovarian cancer when administered with or without bevacizumab (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.10, 2.34, p = 0.37). The combined use of bevacizumab and chemotherapy may have a negative effect on the healing of wound.
FreshRSS 